
s 
.as 



REMARKS 



or 



MR. CADWALADER, OF PENN'A, 



ON THE 



DELAY TO ORGANIZE THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 



OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH CONGRESS, 



DELIVERED ON THE 20TH OF DECEMBER, 185^. 



WASHINGTON: 

PRINTED AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OFF»'^^- 
1855. 



REMARKS. 



The House had been engaged fifteen days in 
balloting, viva voce, for a Speaker; no member 
having received a majority of the voles cast. A 
motion to elect by the vote of a plurality, not 
less than a majority of a quorum, had been 
twice made; and, after discussion, had been 
withdrawn each time by the mover. A motion 
to compel a choice, by excluding candidates not 
voted for on a certain ballot, and afterwards drop- 
ping the candidate having the smallest vote on 
each successive ballot, had been laid on the 
(able by a decisive majority. 

A motion to substitute the vote by ballot for 
that viva voce, afterwards made, had been laid 
on the table by a vote of 213 to 7. On the an- 
nouncement of this vote, Mr. Cadwalader had 
said: 

" I congratulate the country upon this result, upon the 
almost unanimous condemnation by this House of the prin- 
ciple of secret voting — that principle upon which alone can 
ilecret political organizations depend. I repeat, sir, that it 
a a matter of especial congratulation to this Union, that 
the House have voted thus unanimously upon this resolu- 
tion." 

On the sixty-seventh ballot the vote was: For 
Mr. Banks, 104, Mr. Richardson, 73, Mr. 
FcLLER, 34, scattering, 10. Whole number, 221 ; 
necessary to a choice. 111. 

Mr. SMITH, of Alabama, then offered a reso- 
lution which, after certain modifications, was 
reduced by him to form as follows: 

'• Resohcd, (for the informal promotion of business,) That 
this House proceed to the election of two standing com- 
mittees^the Committee of Ways and Means and the Com- 
mittee on Foreign AtTairs — upon the following plan : 

"The Kepubiican party (votes one hundred and five) 
<hall nominate four ; 

•' The Administration party (votes seventy-four) shall 
nominate three ; 

" The National American party (votes forty) shall nom- 
inate two ; 

'■• That the said committees shall each elect its chairman 
by a majority vote ; 

"That the two chairmen, beginning with the chairman 
flf the Committee of Ways and Means, shall preside, alter- 
nately, o%'er the deliberations of the House until a Speaker 
i^hall be elected ; 

'• That the House devote one hour every day to the re- 
ception and reference of bills and petitions, and the usual 
le^slative business ; and 



" That said committees shall be dissolved upon the e»e«- 
tion of a Speaker, and their business shall piss into Vm 
hands of the committees appointed by the Speaker." 

Several members, and particularly Mr. Bo cock, 
of Virginia, and Mr. Grow, of Pennsylvania, 
suggested that this resolution, if passed, could 
not take effect; referring to the second section 
of the actof Congress of June 17, 1789, requiring 
the Speaker of the House to be sworn, and all 
the members present and the Clerk to be sworn 
by the Speaker before entering on any other bus- 
iness. 

Mr. SMITH, of Alabama, proceeded to dis- 
cuss the question; insisting, earnestly, that soma 
informal organization was necessary in order to 
prevent the public business of the country from 
suffering through delay. 

Mr. CADWALADER. I beg leave to dissent 
from the conclusions of the eloquent gentleman 
who has just taken his seat — that the House are 
altogether wasting the public time in their efforta 
to elect a Speaker, or that there has not been 
profit from the developments attendant upon the 
delays and apparent difficulties which have stood 
in the way of its organization. We are here en- 
gaged in the practical solution of the problem, 
whether America can be governed by 5uc/t Amer- 
icans as do not recognize the truth of two propo- 
sitions presented to the House by the Democratic 
minority, as constituting together the present 
platform of their party. The first is perfect 
equality of privileges, civil, religious, and politi- 
cal, of every citizen of our country without ref- 
erence to the place of his birth. The second i3 
the unqualified right of the people of the alave- 
holding States to protection of their propcrtv 
in tlie States, in the Territories, and in the wil- 
derness in which territorial governments are a« 
yet unorganized. The Democratic platform ia 
based on the recognition, not of one, but of both 
of these principles; and when efforts are made by 
honorable gentlemen to siparute these two ques- 
tions, the Democratic party, rusting upon its plat- 
form, says: " We cannot comjiromise either 
proposition, but stand united upon both." 

jNow, of what is the anti-Democratic party 



fomposod ? It is composed of three elements. 
One portion deny both of the Democratic propo- 
e-itions; another portion content themselves with 
a denial of one proposition; the remaining por- 
tion with a denial of the other. I might perhaps 
mention a fourth class; but as I wish to speak 
with perfect courtesy of those from whom I 
differ, I will say nothing of the innominate or 
nondescript portion. I do not stand here to dis- 
(Mjss either of the two questions which I have 
stated ; but I most respectfully desire to explain 
(Kftain reasons why, m the present aspect of the 
question of organization, Democratic members 
cannot be expected to unite in any measure 
which shall expedite organization otherwise than 
through a majority of all the votes. It may be 
that in this respect a different aspect of the ques- 
tion may hereafter be presented; but the question 
is not presented in any such aspect now. I will 
state briefly what I understand to be the reasons 
to which I have referred. We are taught to 
believe by those persons outside of this House 
who assume to know all the truths upon which 
political affairs depend, that there are upon this 
floor about eighty gentlemen who make the Abo- 
lition or Free-Soil principle their governing rule; 
about sixty who concur in opposing the Democ- 
racy, but, in their estimate of the importance of 
this Abolition principle, postpone it to the ques- 
tion which involves the rights of our naturalized 
fellow-citizens; and that there are some seventy- 
five who stand upon the Democratic platform, 
recognizing both the propositions which I at first 
stated. The few remaining members of the House, 
aa yet, occupy no defined or intelligible position. 
Now, sir, a' remarkable occurrence has taken 
place upon this floor — an occurrence as yet unex- 
plained — casting a veil of mystery over our pres- 
ent action, and exciting much more indignation 
throughout this land than the mere negative 
causes which have thus far prevented our organ- 
ization. Every member of this House, I am 
sure, at once recalls to mind the occurrence to 
which I refer. When the honorable gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Campbell] had received, as a 
candidate for the speakership, a number of votes, 
which is generally understood to have indicated 
the true force of one of the elements to which I 
have alluded, he withdrew his name from the 
canvass; and, with a feeling which drew forth 
approbation from every quarter, declared, mgen- 
eral terms, that his honor, or the honor of the 
House — we did not then, withabsolute certainty, 
know which, though his own honor was under- 
stood to be meant — would be involved in any 
arrangement by which he could increase his vote. 
In saying this, he referred expressly to the organ- 
ization of the committees of this House as the 
Bubject-matter of that suggested arrangement 
which he repudiated with scorn, on what he 
called a question of honor. Honor! that was 
the word. Having referred to the organization 
of the committees of this House as the touch- 
Btone of this point of honor, every man's heart, 
of course, rose to his mouth. A respectful a])- 
plication was, however, afterwards made to that 
honorable gentleman to develop the scope and 
extent of his meaning, by making a specification 
of the serious charge which he had thus advanced 
in general language. That gentleman best knows 
the rule of his own conduct. 



I have hitherto been accustomed to believe thai 
whenever a general charge is made, it is appro- 
priate to require a specification. This is espe- 
cially a regular inquiry when persons present are 
to be involved in any investigation consequent 
upon the charge. I believe that the gentleman 
from Ohio would have recognized the soundness of 
this rule of conduct, and would have given us th*:; 
specification, if the request had proceeded from a 
quarter from which he thought that it was rightly 
addressed to him. But the request unfortunately 
was made by a Democrat, the honorable gentle- 
man from Tennessee, [Mr. Smith,] and as one 
of us took the liberty thus to put the question to 
the honorable gentleman from Ohio, he claimed 
the right to make a specific response, or not, as 
he might see proper. I agree reluctantly that> 
until the question is asked by one of those 
whose possible connection with the subject-matter 
of the charge might be suggested, he has the right 
thus to take the jiosition which he did assume, 
and to say to us Democrats: "Gentlemen, I will 
not submit myself to j/owr cross-examination." 
Then our unfortunate condition is this: I have no 
right to submit the gentleman to a cross-exam- 
ination; neither had my friend from Tennessee 
i [Mr. Smith] the right. But those who have the 
I right — those anti-Democratic members whom the 
I charge concerns — have not yet seen fit to ask for 
I a specification. We therefore accepted thank- 
j fully the brief, but not unimportant, response 
which the distinguished member interrogated 
I condescended to make. His remarkable reply 
i was, in words or in eflect, that he refused to give 
the required specification, because, by doing so., 
he might obstruct the organization of the House. 
This unquestionably implied, that he was appre- 
hensive lest a premature disclosure of the whole 
of the truths which now rest within his own secret 
knowledge would impair the vote for Speaker of 
the party whose success he desired. 

But, sir, there have since been further develop- 
ments — striking developments — rendering what is 
known as important as any portion of that whichj 
unfortunately, remains unknown. An honorable 
j gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. Banks,] 
who stands on the same party platform as the 
honorable gentleman from Ohio, afterwards re- 
ceived an accession of a sufficient number of votes 
to make every member whose mind recurred to 
the imperfect disclosures of the gentleman from 
Ohio, desirous to learn from what quarter that 
accession came. Except for the sake of informa- 
tion, this was no concern, perhaps, of those who 
are not voters on that side of the question; bul 
we, the Democratic minority, were at liberty to 
regard it as a remarkable fact, that a gentleman 
put forward by those who occupy the same polit- 
ical platform, received this large accession of 
votes. We were not, for any great length of 
time, at a loss to know the cause. The honor- 
able gentleman from Massachusetts, who received 
this accession of votes, has told us — and no one 
doubts his sincerity — that he has not, in person, 
or, as I understood him to mean, through the 
agency of others, been privy to any such arrange- 
ment as the gentleman from Ohio had rejected as 
dishonorable. The gentleman from Massachu- 
setts telling us this, we fully confide in it. But we 
are told, by his friends and partisans, that he had 
been politically educated upon Democratic prin- 



ciples, and that he stood oricjinally on the plat- 
form of these principles. However he may have 
deserted them, he must, I suppose, while profess- 
ing them, have acquired adcepiate knowledj^e of 
the modes in which he would, if elected Spiakf-r, 
be able to represent any constituency which might 
happen to elect him. 

Now, if it has been the ca.se that gentlemen 
have forborne to pursue with him ilie policy 
which was adopted with such a failure of success 
with the gentleman from Ohio, we can say that, 
profiting by experience, they have this time been 
less imprudent. If it had rested there, we would 
not, however, have been at fault in forming an 
opinion as to their motives and purposes, if they 
should by success become his constituents; nor 
would we have been at a loss in forming a con- 
ception of the charaetur and tendency of the rec- 
ommendations which he would receive from those 
who must become participants in his councils. We 
might therefore have conjectured the character of 
the proposed understanding as to the committees 
which had been (londemned by the gentleman from 
Ohio. But it did not rest there. Another gentle- 
man fromOhiOjthe senior member of this House, 
[Mr. GiDDixGs,] has since told us on this floor 
what would be the precise expectations of this 
constituency. I translate into plain English the 
declarations of that gentleman thus: " Make the 
honorable metnber from Massachusetts Speaker, 
and he will constitute the Committee on Territo- 
ries and the Committee of Elections, and certain 
other committees, in such a manner as to suit the 
views of those who stand upon the Abolition 
platform, and he will compose the committees 
expected to bring forward questionsarising under 
the naturalization laws, and cognate questions 
involving principles of civil and religious liberty, 
in the mode which will best suit the views of the 
party who desire to claim for themselves the de- 
nomination of ' American.' " 

The question thus arises: Are those few gen- 
tlemen on this floor, who profess to disapprove 
of the Democratic organization generally, but 
concur with Democrats in desiring to sustain the 
privileges of our brethren of the slaveholding 
States — I say, are the gentlemen who compose 
this portion of the anti-Democratic majority, to 
be forced into the new organization which is 

fledged explicitly by the gentleman from Ohio 
Mr. GiDDiXGs] to sacrifice what these gentle- 
men concur with the Democratic party in regard- 
ing as constitutionally guaranteed rights of the 
slaveholding States.? IJpon these gentlemen de- 
pends the organization of this House. I now, in 
a plain and an honest way, confiding in their sin- 
cerity, address them thus: You have to choose 
between evils that which you may deem the 
least. An Abolitionist, or the Democratic candi- 
date [Mr. Richardson] nmst, sooner or later, 
be elected Speaker of this House by a majority 
or by a plurality of its votes. If you deem the 
choice of the Democratic candidate a less evil 
than that of an Abolitionist, vote, if you see 
proper, for the Democratic candidate. If you do 
BO, you can expect nothing from him or from the 
party which he will, in that case, represent. We 
do not ask this of you. We can offer you noth- 
ing in return for it. He will stand upon the Dem- 
ocratic platform, supported on its two-fold base. 
You desire to retain your honor; it is your con- 



cern to judge whether this can be your mode of 
doing it. But take the opposite course; allow an 
organization through a plurality vote, or other- 
wise, in s\ich a manner, that the choice will ulti- 
mately fall upon thr gentleman from Massachu- 
setts, and you \\ ill do indin'ctly that which yoti 
disclaim the purpose- to do directly. You will 
make an Abolition organization of this House. 
This is undoubtedly the practical question pre- 
sented. 

Now, sir, those gentlemen stand, as I fully 
believe, with perfect honor and sincerity, upon 
the platform of not directly or indirectly pro- 
moting an organization which shall subvert the 
constitutional rights of the slaveholder. If that 
be so, there cannot be an organization while they 
maintain their present attitiide. Well, then, ha.i 
time been lost in ascertaining this? I say no. 
The questions we are testing in these ballots are 
precisely those questions which, sooner or later, 
are to be tested by votes on this floor. The 
great, the interesting truth which the balloting 
for these fifteen days has established is, that a 
majority of this House are not in favor of a repeal 
!i of the Nebraska bill; not in favor of a repeal of 
l' the clause of that bill which repealed the so-called 
it Missouri compromise; and perhaps not in favor 
I of agitating, in any form, the slavery question 
i; with a view to the sacrifice of the rights of prop- 
i erty of the southern States, within or without 
I their limits. Has this been loss of time ? No; 
j; it has healed the wounded feelings of this nation, 
I and has restored confidence in the stability of 
; the Constitution. 
i I freely concede that, if the people of the United 

I States were fairly represented on this floor, there 
j' would be great force in the argument that for the 

I I purpose oif' organization we must sacrifice ther*e 
I ! important considerations, and some other im- 
ji portant considerations of the pending canvass, to 

j which I will not refer. But the Democrats on 
this floor believe conscientiously that the people 
j of the United States are not represented here. 
1 1 They believe that through artifice and deception 
'i the anti-Democratic ticket succeeded, as it would 
ij not have succeeded if the Democrats had been 
[\ opposed by any fair and open organization. 1, 
jl sir, standing here as one of the Representatives 
' of the principles of the Democratic platform, was 
elected last year by a bare majority, which, 
jj judging from what has since occurred, wonld 
|; have been increased more than a hundred fold if 
r the election had been held last fall. The Senate 
jiand the House of Reiiresentatives of the State 
I of Pennsylvania, together, are composed of on« 
hundred and thirty-three members. Last year, 
i! of the members of both Houses assembled in 
convention to choose a Senator of the United 
States, thirty only were Democrats. All the 
others were anti-Democratic. A practical ques- 
tion of great utility was there taugnt — a question 
like that which we are now investigating here. 
At that time, with a majority of more than three 
to one, those opposed to this small minority so 
differed among themselves that they failed to 
elect a Senator of the United States. 

Now, sir, an election has intervened, and an over- 
whelming majority of both branches of that Le- 
gislature is Democratic. Last year, the minority 
there stood as the minority here stands, firmly 
together. The consequence was, an exposition of 



6 



the incompetency of the anti-Democratic party 
to unite the factions composing it in order to rule 
the State of Pennsylvania. Their incapacity to 
govern a part of America was thus practically 
exemplified and tested. The result has been that 
the present Legislature of Pennsylvania is Dem- 
ocratic. The members of the present Congress 
from Pennsylvania were elected when the anti- 
Democrafic Legislature of last year was elected. 
If the vole had been taken in the present year, 
the result would have been reversed. The same 
thing has occurred in other States. 

We now know how the result of lastyear'.s elec- 
tion was brought about. As early as the year 1851, 
Henry Clay had put in writing his prediction 
that the Democratic candidate for the Presidency 
in 1852 would be elected. One of the last words 
of Daniel Webster, uttered in October, 1852, 
was, that if he should live, and be able to attend 
the then approaching election, he would cast 
his vote for the Democratic candidate, of whose 
election he said that he entertained no doubt. 
Thus both the distinguished loaders of the former 
Whig party recognized its extinction, and proph- 
esied the success of the Democratic ticket. This 
had, for eighteen months before the election of 
1852, been a subject of repeated and continued 
prophecy. The consequence of that prophecy 
was, that everywhere the Democratic party was 
numerously reinforced by unsolicited accessions 
of unfaithful allies. Corrupt, designing, calcu- 
lating politicians, forced themselves into their 
organization, and swelled their apparent numbers. 

The Democratic party throughout the land had 
been honest, and were unsuspicious. They had 
been in the habit of confiding in the purity of 
their local organizations. After the presiden- 
tial election they did not suspect that wherever dis- 
appointments had ensued upon the distribution of 
offices, their ranks were filled with discontented 
traitors. When those traitors united themselves 
with Abolitionists, they did it secretly. So they 
secretly united themselves with the party which 
had for years been organized for the proscription 
and disfranchisement of our naturalized fellow- 
citizens. They formed in like maimer other un- 
known alliances, professing all the time to con- 
tinue in fellowship with the Democratic organi- 
zation. It is now easy to recur to what was then 
unknown and unsuspected. The Democratic 
organization was dissolved without any suspicion 
on the part of its honest members. The secret 
conspirators had succeeded in uniting to them- 
selves all who were discontented. The result in 
the northern States was a temporary defeat of 
the Democracy. The secret combination ex- 
tended itself to the southern States. There, for- 
tunately, the elections took place long subse- 
quently. 

Through the secrecy which had covered their 
machinations at the North, the conspirators were 
enabled for a time successfully to deceive many 
Democrats, and not a few well-meaning Whigs 
of the South. Our southern brethren were for 
a brief season led artfully into the belief that 
Abolition had not been, us it has always been, a 
principal test of northern Know Jfotkingism, how- 



ever it has of late been disclainied by a few. 
The Democratic party stood their ground. They 
knew, that when these anti-Democratic factions. 
North and South, should attempt to form a plat* 
form in order to resolve themselves into a party, 
the delusion would vanish, the veil be stripped 
from them, and the distinction between a party 
and a casual aggregation of factions would b« 
manifest. And was it not so ? When the dele- 
gates of the so-called American party assembleij 
in Philadelphia in June last, what was the result 
of their deliberations.' It was this: The Know 
Nothing or American party, so far as composed 
of those who respect the constitutional rights of 
our southern brethren, dwindled into a handful 
of persons — a small remnant now represented on 
this floor by some forty out of two hundred and 
thirty-four members. Yes; a little more than one 
sixth of this representation of the whole people 
represents the so-called Americans who are true 
to the constitutional rights of the slaveholding 
States. 

Now, sir, I am not going analytically into a 
consideration of the late triumphant successes of 
our party in various States. I do not even intend 
to say what we expect from Kentucky a year 
hence, or to refer to those occurrences on which 
this expectation mainly depends. I do not wish 
to get away from the question pending before the 
House. I say to this handful of gentlemen, to 
the Spartan band of "Americans," as they call 
themselves, who represent that portion of their 
party which is true to the rights of the South, 
that it rests with them to elect, or to prevent the 
election of, a Speaker favorable to Abolition senti- 
ments. I use this word Aholition as a general 
term. I do not understand specific differencea 
between Abolitionism, Free-Soilism, non-inter- 
ventionism, and non-agitationism. They carl 
prevent the election of a Speaker who will organ- 
ize the committees after the standard of the senior 
member from Ohio, [Mr. Giddings.] They can 
allow this result to take place, or can prevent it. 
I am not sorry that they are able to throw into the 
teeth of the Democratic party, as they do, that 
we have not conciliated and will not conciliate 
them. We do not conciliate them, and we will 
not involve ourselves in any compromise with 
them. We do not ask their votes; but leave them 
perfectly free to cast these votes as their own 
sense of honor and patriotism may dictate. 

1 have not intended in these remarks to take n 
controversial position; but have desired plainly 
to state what 1 believe to be the views of the 
Democratic minority at the present crisis. If 
any one of my colleagues differs from me, I desire, 
so far as he is concerned, to be corrected. I have 
endeavored to show why it would at least be pre- 
mature for the Democrats upon this floor to enter 
into any question of a j)lurality vote, or other- 
wise to complicate matters, in the present posi- 
tion of the House. Should a time arrive when a 
different state of things will be presented, the 
party will be ready to define appropriately their 
position. At present we do not perceive how 
America can bo ruled upon any principles other 
than those of the Democratic platform. 



LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS 

011 897 854 7 1 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



011 897 854 7 



